public diplomacy

George Kennan knew a thing or two about how nations treat one another. In 1946, while serving as deputy chief of the U.S. mission in Moscow, he penned “the long telegram.” That assessment of what motivated the Soviet Union shaped U.S. policy toward Moscow for decades.

From Kiev to Damascus, Moscow to Caracas, there are very few international conflicts and debates where the actions and position of the United States is not influential. In Ukraine, the United States stands solidly behind the interim government, and slapped some sanctions on Russian officials after Moscow annexed Crimea.

Internationally, the 2010 Shanghai World Expo was a major tourism and branding draw card for its host city. Domestically, the Expo constituted a major source of national pride and a key vehicle for the promotion of official messages reinforcing traditional state propaganda themes.

Public diplomacy comes with side effects. Positive unintended consequences become part of the intended impact, but negative ones should concern us.

by Nicholas J. Cull

April 17, 2014

Effective, pragmatic partnerships based on shared objectives—economic growth, financial stability, and more—are the future of diplomacy. Such partnerships will be the engine for increased security and prosperity, not just for advanced, but also for emerging economies around the world.

As Friday's curtain came down on this year's Boao Forum for Asia (BFA), a public diplomacy event, the lasting effect on China should be progress and reform. It is fair to say that the four days of the conference, covering sixty topics and attracting over 3,000 global figures from all walks of life, were a good example of public diplomacy itself.

Pages